On
September 29, 2005 the U.S. House of Representatives Voted to Gut the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Thank you to everyone that tried to stop
them. Now the fate of the ESA rests in the hands of the Senate. Call your
Senator today and ask them to support a strong ESA.

September
27, 2005 -

Endangered
species would no longer be protected from the harmful effects of pesticides
under a last minute amendment
by Representative Walden (R-OR) to Representative Pombo’s (R-CA)
anti-Endangered Species Act bill (H.R.
3824). This especially damaging waiver of protections from pesticides
makes a bad bill even worse.

The sweeping amendment
exempts all pesticide decisions from the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) compliance and eliminates the requirement that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) consult with federal wildlife agencies on approval
of pesticides for five years. It is this consultation
and evaluation process that has helped protect endangered species,
such as Pacific Northwest salmon, from pesticides that are extremely toxic
to this valuable species. Under the proposed legislation, a pesticide
known to kill endangered species could be approved during that time without
any regard for the protections of ESA. The Bush Administration has tried
to achieve similar results by rewriting
federal regulations.

The amendment also
exempts for five years all pesticide users from responsibility if the
use of a pesticide harms a threatened or endangered species. Federal and
state agencies as well as individuals and corporations will no longer
be held responsible for the death of endangered or threatened wildlife
due to use or misuse of pesticides.

This amendment would
take away the ability under the ESA to stop pesticide use even when necessary
to prevent extinction. Without existing checks and balances on pesticide
use, the effect on wildlife could be devastating, and humans could be
hurt too as toxic pesticides are applied by farm laborers, and make their
way into our nation’s streams, rivers, and food supply.

The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) alone does not adequately protect
endangered species. EPA interprets FIFRA to require balancing the profits
from using a pesticide against the dollar value of harm caused by that
pesticide, without adequately considering alternative products and techniques.
The Endangered Species Act, on the other hand, recognizes what
almost all Americans believe: that no dollar amount can be placed on the
extinction of our nation’s wildlife.

Beyond the Walden
amendment, the Rep. Pombo's original version of H.R. 3824, ironically
titled the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005,
already had environmentalists up in arms. "If Rep. Pombo's legislation
were part of the original ESA, the recovery of the bald eagle, grizzly
bear, and peregrine falcon would have been extremely difficult if not
impossible," said Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of
Wildlife. "The bill contains provisions that would severely cripple
the federal effort to recover endangered plants and animals. It runs counter
to the very intent of ESA and flies in the face of Rep. Pombo's earlier
professed desire to improve wildlife conservation." For more information
on Representative Pombo’s anti-ESA bill, see Defenders
of Wildlife's full analysis.

Tell
your Member of Congress to vote against H.R. 3824. Please consider
taking the time to customize Defenders of Wildlife's action alert to your
Member of Congress to include your concerns on Rep. Walden's amendment
that leaves endangered species vulnerable to toxic pesticides.